Appeal 3332589

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission [name]/2023/07494 for barn/store with adjacent hardstanding at [site address] granted on 25 October 2023 by Wiltshire Council, is varied by deleting condition 5.

Planning permission has been granted for a barn/store with adjacent hardstanding. The appeal seeks to remove condition 5 which requires that the barn shall not be occupied other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of [site address] , and to remain within the same planning unit as the main dwelling.

The reason given for the condition is that the building is in a position where the Council would not permit a separate dwelling, having regard to the reasonable standards of residential amenity, access, and planning policies pertaining to the area.

The main issue therefore is whether the condition is reasonable and necessary having regard to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties and future occupiers, access and the spatial strategy for the area.

The approved barn would be located to the southeast of [site address] and accessed from the south. Development in the area is loose-knit and further properties exist to the northwest side of the lane. There is a generous distance between the location of the barn and the nearest properties with mature landscaping and the lane interceding. Given the degree of separation the residential use of the building would not result in any loss of light or privacy. Any noise which would occur as a result of any residential use of the barn would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring properties to a significant degree.

In the absence of a proposal for the conversion of the barn to a residential dwelling, it is not possible to conclude that any such proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers with respect to light, amenity space and internal space provision.

The access to the barn would be via an established access off the lane. The Highway Authority did not object to the proposal, however I recognise that its consideration was based on the use applied for and therefore might not be applicable to any residential use of the barn. Consequently, it is reasonable for the Council to seek to retain control over the use of the barn in this respect.

The spatial strategy for the area is set out in [name] 1 and 2 of the [name]. Together these policies seek to focus development in areas with good access to services and facilities and to limit development outside the defined limits of development to that specifically permitted by the policies of the plan. The appeal site is outside of any defined settlement boundary. Therefore, in the absence of any detailed scheme, the provision of a dwelling in the location of the barn would conflict with the spatial strategy of the area.

Whilst the reasons for wishing to indicate that a dwelling in this location might not be appropriate are understood, neither the description of development nor the approved plans give an indication that a residential use for the building is proposed. In any event the conversion of the barn to a dwelling would require approval. As such further controls to prevent a residential use occurring are not necessary.

Furthermore condition 7, which is not in dispute states: “The barn permitted shall remain as an agricultural barn and be used only for purposes ancillary to the maintenance of land of the associated dwelling and not any other business or commercial use.” This condition ensures that the barn could not be used as a dwelling without recourse to the Council. Therefore, removing condition 5 would not have any effect on the acceptability of the original development.

Interested parties have raised concerns in respect of the sensitivity of the site given its location in the Cranborne Chase National Landscape (NL). However, for the reasons outlined above, the disputed condition is not necessary to prevent the use of the building as a dwelling, regardless of its position in the NL. Condition 7 provides adequate control of the use to ensure that the barn would not be used for commercial purposes. The need or otherwise, for the barn is not a matter which is before me. The ownership of land is not relevant to the reasons given for the disputed condition which relate solely to the desire to avoid the creation of a separate dwelling.

Accordingly, I find that the disputed condition is not reasonable or necessary, having regard to the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties and future occupiers, access and the spatial strategy for the area.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should succeed. I will vary the planning permission by deleting the disputed condition.